Renewable energy!

[Anonymous No.10080279]

Hey /sci/

I've recently become interested in renewable energy. Are there any technologies or companies you think are poised well for the future?

[Anonymous No.10080283]

>>10080279
no

[Anonymous No.10080286]

>>10080279
SolarCity unless Musk posts some shit about buying it back at some multiple of 4.20

[Anonymous No.10080287]

>>10080279
Fusion. Now go stick a dragon dildo in your ass faggot

[Anonymous No.10080327]

>>10080286
solarcity is bunk brah

[Anonymous No.10080339]

>>10080279
Solar and wind will grow a lot

[Anonymous No.10080341]

>>10080339
wow, true insight thank you

[Anonymous No.10080345]

>>10080341
l2google fucking brainlet

[Anonymous No.10080749]

>>10080279
here is an general overview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

[Anonymous No.10080802]

>>10080279
I'm still hopeful for thermochemical solar power.

[Anonymous No.10080810]

>>10080279
Using heat in air to power stuff.

[Anonymous No.10081355]

ultimately solar will win, especially in sunny regions

[Anonymous No.10081442]

>>10081355
Nah nuclear will win.

[Anonymous No.10081586]

>>10081442
nuclear is not renewable and is dead for decades

[Anonymous No.10081600]

>>10081586
It can be once we get off anchoring water heating technology and finally master fusion

[Anonymous No.10081601]

>>10081442
Nuclear tards roll out!

[Anonymous No.10081603]

>>10081600
>fusion

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10081617]

>>10081603
It’s not even something theoretical, it happens in nature so there’s no reason why we can’t recreate it and harness the energy output from it.

All you need is to make your it self sustainable with a net gain. We already have done fusion, it’s just that it takes way more energy to make it happen than we get back. Eventually we will have it going in an energy cycle that powers itself and gives us a net gain for personal use.

[Anonymous No.10081631]

>>10081603

[Anonymous No.10081636]

>>10081617
>eventually
Quit saying its going to work in the future and make it work now

[Anonymous No.10081639]

4th gen fission

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU

[Anonymous No.10081762]

>>10081600
our power will come from fusion, but from the fusion happening in the sun
solarthermic plants exist and work fine, we just need to build more, energy problem solved

[Anonymous No.10082065]

>>10081600
If
When
Perhaps
Possibly
Maybe
Hopefully
Mayhap

[Anonymous No.10082069]

>>10080279
please explain why this shit is called renewable? how exactly is energy renewable? is the fucking wind renewable? jesus fuck this is stupid

[Anonymous No.10082095]

Flood defence, GMO research for drought resistance, security gates and underground bunkers will be big

[Anonymous No.10082116]

>>10082069
We'll be totally fucked once the sun burns out

[Anonymous No.10082123]

>>10082116
dont worry, its a renewable energy brah, hurr durr durr durr

[Anonymous No.10082210]

>>10080279
To me, solar thermal has shown the most promise in recent years. Solar PV is pretty well established by now, and its most effective use seems to be on the roof of every home and business, supplementing the building's energy usage. Wind turbines take up a lot of space, but putting them off the shore when that's available seems like a reasonable workaround. Solar thermal has a good ability to be scaled to power station level and to store that energy using molten salts, as long as the area has high solar irradiance like in the desert. There are some other possibilities with that, like a phase change storage material if a good candidate can be found, which would make it more efficient. But thermal storage is already good enough to run a turbine for hours, on demand and after the sun has gone down. We just need to build more of them. Reducing consumption of resources is the bigger challenge though, and would have a bigger impact than just holding out hope for better technology and more of the right infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.10082461]

>>10080279
Once solar reaches grid parity there will be economic incentive to use it (on a large scale). But before then its nothing but a meme

[Anonymous No.10082473]

>>10082461
>muh economy
fossil fuels are shit though

[Anonymous No.10082484]

>>10081617
>self sustainable
>fusion
>made by mankind
>with net gain

WEW LAD

[Anonymous No.10082516]

>>10082473
Dont be naive. Economics plays a large role in the debate for energy sources.

[Anonymous No.10082560]

>>10082210
would it be reasonable to make cities make all of their electricity, say if you literally covered every roof with panels?

[Anonymous No.10082598]

It's interesting. All depends on when we decide to unleash nuclear at full potential.

Renewables are a combination of: location specific, unreliable, environmentally challenging, polluting to create, long supply chain needing, large area requiring, unresponsive to demand (without batteries). They are also expensive to set up and run without subsidies. I'll gladly post proof though I don't expect people to actually read the reports.

Nuclear on the other hand is: cheaper to set up and cheaper to run (without the absurd requirements and inefficiencies of modern governments), can be done anywhere, extremely power dense, fits our current power plant electricity model, is reliable, needs no batteries, responds to demand and is orders of magnitude safer than all other forms of power while also not destroying the environment like wind farms and hydro plants.

However, the green cults, who were originally set up to protest nuclear have a stranglehold over the political scene, so endless subsidies will go to objectively worse power sources.

[Anonymous No.10082619]

>>10082516
Can't have an economy when a superstorm assrapes the country's infrastructure

[Anonymous No.10082628]

The real question is how long before residential homes need no utility services. That is pipes and wires that go to the house.

[Anonymous No.10082649]

>>10082628
ok, lets say you can get every home off the grid, big if, specially in cities. where does water come from? where does poop go?

[Anonymous No.10082656]

>>10082649
Water could be done from rooftop collection+buried tanks+truck top up if needed, waste can be taken care of with composting toilets/biogas tanks

[Anonymous No.10082657]

>>10082656
Filtered drinking water.
>>10082656
>biogas tanks
that already exist, its done mostly in poor areas without sanitation

[Anonymous No.10082695]

>>10082657
Yes you put a series of filters on the tank outlet and presto, the water is cleaner than 99% of municipal supplies

>Doesn't refute composting toilets
>Doesn't say why biogas is bad

Do you have any arguments? Every house today could easy be off grid if battery technology was better, that is the one limiting factor.

[Anonymous No.10082702]

>>10082695
>be off grid if battery technology was better, that is the one limiting factor.
how about cities? a house could maybe do it, but an 8 storie building would need 8 rooftops of solar panels, doesnt check out, also solar panels are expensive

[Anonymous No.10082721]

The economy of scale is the limiting factor. Scaling up water treatment, energy generation, waste disposal makes them work more efficiently.

Stop trying to live like a hermit. People scale up too. That's why we have a civilization...

[Anonymous No.10082807]

>>10082560
>would it be reasonable to make cities make all of their electricity, say if you literally covered every roof with panels?

sure, even in northeren regions, like Germany or Canada. you would just need a way to store it, like e.g. batteries from electric cars.

[Anonymous No.10082866]

>>10080279
None of the individual technologies are scalable enough from a resource perspective to cover all of the worlds energy demands, google the “Terrawatt Challenge”. It will end up being a combination of technologies, and a key part will be energy storage. The need for that will drastically increase over the next few decades, so probably the sector that will experience the most drastic growth.

t. actually researching in the field

[Anonymous No.10083049]

>>10082516
Don't be naive. The tragedy of the commons continues to play out the longer fossil fuels are used and global warming continues.

[Anonymous No.10083055]

>>10082721
Maybe scaling up is the wrong approach for a change. Sure, a few big plants were a good idea for coal power or nuclear, but wind and photovoltaic are ideally suited for decentralisation, and I don't think water treatment depends on centralised solutions at all, you can treat water in as little or as large a scale as you want.

[Anonymous No.10083060]

>>10082807
The Church of Based.

[Anonymous No.10083064]

>>10082461
solar already reached grid parity in many locations

[Anonymous No.10083191]

You'll never get a high energy society off of renewable energy-related, because of the need for high power, high capacity factor.

https://youtu.be/V2KNqluP8M0

[Anonymous No.10083229]

>>10083191
>implying you need high energy society to achieve same goals

Current levels of energy can be done non nuclear or fossil, we just need to invest a fraction of money than military consumes and we're all green retards with really high-sustianability and in the end "bigger" energy potencial, because FOSSIL FUELS DONT DISSAPEAR when you go green and you've got fossil+green potential instead of just green potential./

[Anonymous No.10083257]

we need a mix of nuclear, renewables, carbon tax, conservation but most of all population control

[Anonymous No.10083260]

>>10083257
We're gonna need those people to rebel against the AI army.

[Anonymous No.10083263]

>>10083257
revise the UN human rights to say the "family unit" is limited only to what is sustainable given your socioeconomic position

[Anonymous No.10083320]

>>10083229
at first there will be more capacity then needed (you can observe this in Europe, also in the US) but after a few years more and more old fossil power plants shut down because they would need mayor repairs or reach the end of their lifetime, this happens even faster for atomic power because they are less competitive then coal and repairs are more expensive.
natural gas will survive longer

[Anonymous No.10083328]

Ethanol
>It's renewable
>It fixes carbon
>It doesn't require lots of technology to implement
>You can do it yourself
>It can run in electronically-controlled fuel injected engines without any modifications

[Anonymous No.10083334]

>>10080283
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.10083371]

If God wanted us to use renewable energy now for everything then why did he cause a fracking boom?

[Anonymous No.10083670]

>>10083229
The projected cost of 100% renewable was going to be 15 trillion even at half the military budget of the US that would still take 45 years to complete not the even to mention the expensive cost of maintaining that generation and the cost of future energy requirements

[Anonymous No.10083810]

>>10083670
Your numbers are way off. It's much cheaper. Energy demand in the US is going down and we just need to replace old retiring coal and nuclear plants with renewable. Something we already do. Actually money which would have been spend to replace old coal power with new coal power now goes to renewable.

[Anonymous No.10084282]

Did airborne wind turbines ever become a thing? I remember reading about those a few years ago.

[Anonymous No.10084526]

>>10083328
Ethanol is SHIT. Monocropping corn is stupid for many reasons. The soil is eroded and degraded from intensive agriculture (tillage and nutrient depletion), and then there's the eutrophication of waterways and the high water input. All to make fucking fuel, which is even less worth it than as livestock feed for meat monster diets.

[Anonymous No.10084544]

>>10084526
The best way to make synthetic fuels is just to take carbon out of the atmosphere and use that.

[Anonymous No.10084645]

>>10084544
Are you going to harvest them with solar energy? Because otherwise thermodynamics says it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.10084659]

>>10080279
Nuke is semi-renewable and probably the best for power grids we have right this second, thermovoltaics if large enough batteries can be made to supply power grids during downtime and crank out extra during higher demand periods.

[Anonymous No.10084679]

The major problem with renewables is load balancing, right? That their power output is wholly dependent on the weather; if the wind dies down, so does your power. If the wind picks up too much and the grid demand can't match it, you fry your substation. Right? So why don't we build surplus power stations, be they solar or wind or whatever, and when they're generating extra, we use that electricity to make hydrocarbon fuel from the CO2 in the air. We could save this fuel for when the weather is sub-optimal for power generation or use it to run automobiles.

[Anonymous No.10084740]

>>10084679
These extra stations exist. They run on natural gas usually.

[Anonymous No.10084869]

>>10084679
It actually works, so far it's only viable far small island systems but as renewable becomes cheaper and the process becomes more efficient it could become an option soon.

[Anonymous No.10085300]

>>10084679
you can also use hydrogen to power trains
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/17/germany-launches-worlds-first-hydrogen-powered-train

[Anonymous No.10085317]

>>10082560
No it wouldn't be reasonable.
>>10082807
This person is an optimist. The reason cities are bad for solar is that they are dense which means their total surface area is less(less power) and their total volume is more (more draw).

If you want to power a city you need to have more than the area of the city covered by solar. The ultimate limit is what energy comes in from the sun 1w/m^2 max.

[Anonymous No.10085377]

>>10085317
the most dense part of a city could be a challenge, but if you include less dense areas and put solar on every roof in suburbs and cover also parking space you even get an energy surplus, you even might get enough to make all cars electric

[Anonymous No.10085378]

>>10085317
"All" is an unreasonable goal, which you are pointing out. Solar PV is still a good idea in most cities, because that power will still be used wherever it is being generated in the city. A bigger issue for adding a lot of PV panels is thieves.

[Anonymous No.10085462]

>>10085317
seems you got a typo in your numbers, even in northern Germany average is 1000W/m2

[Anonymous No.10085499]

>solar
>a million euros square meter of chinkshit panel
>replacing anything
lmao

[Anonymous No.10085521]

>solar energy is inefficient in areas far north or on cloudy days

Yet, people still use it to good effect in those areas.

[Anonymous No.10085559]

>>10085462
kWh/m^2/year != W/m^2

[Anonymous No.10085595]

>>10085462
Yeah missed the k should have been 1kw/m^2

[Anonymous No.10085602]

>>10085377
suburbs =/= city
Also do the math on roof and parking and you find even in the suburbs it isn't enough. You need to dedicate land to the task of absorbing sunlight as efficiently as possible.

[Anonymous No.10085644]

>>10083328
>you have nothing to eat

[Anonymous No.10085647]

>>10083670
I think you made mistake in your mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10085652]

>>10085602
What about you do the math?
If you try this in Manhattan it might not work indeed. But it's not sunny an extremely dense.
If you try in spread out LA in sunny California you just need a way to store energy over night.

[Anonymous No.10085678]

Why would you place solar panels when you can extract heat from air?

[Anonymous No.10085681]

>>10085678
Is this a meme I don't know?

[Anonymous No.10085704]

>>10085681
It is a meme called thermodynamics. It states that thermal pump powering heat engine can be sufficient for heat engine to power heat pump.

[Anonymous No.10085722]

>>10085704
No it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10085754]

>>10084679
That’s the idea, but the problem is that it’s not financially feasible to have a P2G station running only a few hundred hours a year, it needs to run most of the time to turn a profit, and that doesn’t work

[Anonymous No.10085765]

>>10085722
And where the fuck it doesn't state it?

[Anonymous No.10085771]

>>10085765
Everywhere?

[Anonymous No.10085778]

>>10085771
Example?

[Anonymous No.10085780]

>>10085778
Right here in this post for example.

[Anonymous No.10085781]

>>10085780
Very mature. Such discussion.

[Anonymous No.10085790]

>>10085781
>>10085704
>It states that thermal pump powering heat engine can be sufficient for heat engine to power heat pump.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this but the most obvious answers are thermodynamically impossible.

You can't run a heat pump into and a heat engine out from the same closed system and not have it wasting energy doing nothing.

[Anonymous No.10085803]

>>10085790
Who's talking about closed system?

[Anonymous No.10085810]

>>10085790
>Extract heat from air.
>Closed...
...

[Anonymous No.10085819]

>>10085810
>>10085803
I know you guys are memeing but you need a temperature differential to run a heat engine not just a hot day.

[Anonymous No.10085846]

>>10085819
Like heat pump doesn't create it.

[Anonymous No.10085853]

>>10085846
>I'm trolling you
OK draw me a diagram where your system actually does something. At least then there would be new content.

[Anonymous No.10085860]

>>10085853
Okey, now buy me a phone so I can upload it.

[Anonymous No.10085881]

>>10085860

[Anonymous No.10085906]

>>10085853
Heat pump <> Heat engine ( mechanically tied )

Heat from pump goes to heat engine.
Pump is pumping from air, cold point in heat engine is air. There is also heat pump from out air to in air.

Cycles:
Gas has air temperature,
Gets heated by exhaust heat by heat pump,
Gets compressed, radiates heat, that is used with another gas, to power heat engine,
Gas get uncompressed, temperature lower than air, gets heat from air cycle repeat.

Gas in heat engine goes to cold point, it still has energy, energy is pumped to gas in pump cycle by another pump.

Heat engine generates mechanical movement to power heatpumps (% efficiency bigger than 1/3).

Heat pump pumps more heat than it is actually it's power supply, technically possible to pump at 4x.
Now argue.

[Anonymous No.10085929]

>>10080279
Clean coal technology will make America great again.

[Anonymous No.10085937]

>>10085906
>efficiency bigger than 1/3
NOPE

[Anonymous No.10085962]

>>10085937
Where do you live? 20th century?

[Anonymous No.10085967]

>>10085906
>Heat pump pumps more heat than it is actually it's power supply
How?

[Anonymous No.10085973]

>>10085967
It's not heater, it's a pump...

[Anonymous No.10085979]

>>10085973
>It's not heater, it's a pump...
That doesn't explain how it can move more heat than it's power supply.

It is literally like saying you have a pump and a water turbine and you can pump more water up to a reservoir than you need to go through the turbine to generate the energy to run the pump.

[Anonymous No.10085983]

>>10082095
lol

[Anonymous No.10085988]

>>10082721
long term absolutely not

[Anonymous No.10085998]

>>10085979
No, I'm saying that when you compress gas, you get more heat than power inserted...

Quoting wiki: The COP usually exceeds 1, especially in heat pumps. (Coefficient of Performance).

[Anonymous No.10086021]

>>10085998
There is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.10086029]

>>10086021
And can't you state something different than:
"You are just breaking my precious law which doesn't even apply to open systems but nevermind."

[Anonymous No.10086038]

>>10086029
You can't even draw a diagram for your system.

[Anonymous No.10086102]

>>10086038
I don't use mouse for drawing, I don't have a tablet and I don't have camera, I had drawn diagram.

Also I've explained whole system in a way YOU can draw a diagram too from the information and it wouldn't differ much.

[Anonymous No.10086125]

>>10086102
>can't even use clip art arrows and text boxes
You need to be at leas 18 to be on this site.

[Anonymous No.10086158]

>>10082116
The motion was probably passed on the principle that they didn't want to lose green space for the use of solar panels, but then the journalist decided it would be funnier to twist that as "lol they think it sucks up all the sun's energy xDDDDDDD".

[Anonymous No.10086385]

>>10080279
Solar energy still has lots of space to grow in small scale generation, and that will be backed up by the improvement in photovoltaic cells technology. Fission is still the best for large scale, but there are regulations, activists yadda, yadda, yadda

[Anonymous No.10086468]

>>10080279
Nazi free energy in Antarctica, the literal asshole of the hollow earth

[Anonymous No.10086475]

>>10085678
Anon they have made solar panels with thermoelectrics in the bottom but it's probably not cost effective

[Anonymous No.10086477]

>>10082116
This only happens in the end times when God powers off the simulation

[Anonymous No.10087155]

>>10083328
You get very bad results for the amount of energy required for making it

[Anonymous No.10087205]

>>10083049
The tragedy of commons relates to the economic incentive of using fossil fuels. Of course people will use fossil fuels if it is the most cost effective/available.

[Anonymous No.10087220]

Uranium fission.

Fuel rods can be recycled, but currently aren't. Since it uses the same process as uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous No.10087225]

>>10081639
This fucking pisses me off.

[Anonymous No.10087318]

>>10085754
as soon as you get enough excess renewable energy in a region and enough storage it can run almost continuously

[Anonymous No.10087371]

>>10081762
They only work in certain places.

[Anonymous No.10087374]

>>10082866
Uranium light water fission

[Anonymous No.10087377]

>>10086125
States the person who cant read text

[Anonymous No.10087404]

>>10080279
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/bill-gates-to-strip-c02-from-air-for-clean-fuel/

Bill Gates has a company which uses solar energy to convert CO2 into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. This is the future. Fuel cells can run off jet fuel as well as traditional generators and ICEs.

[Anonymous No.10087424]

>>10087404
This is how faggots end up when they can't grow hemp.

[Anonymous No.10087546]

>>10087371
perfect is anywhere in the read and orange area, e.g. almost all of California, if we use only a fraction of desert areas we could produce all energy the world will ever need

[Anonymous No.10087641]

>>10087546
Transmission losses

[Anonymous No.10087901]

>>10087641
Most people live in sunny regions and industries with huge demand of energy are already there or could be moved.
Transmission losses can be greatly reduced with high-voltage direct current.

[Anonymous No.10088280]

>>10087318
Yeah, the problem ist that the storage can’t be run profitably, at least not yet

[Anonymous No.10088341]

>>10087404
Climeworks is a company that's doing this too.

If we power it all with purely zero-carbon energy sources (like nuclear and solar), we can probably create a carbon-negative system that actually reverses climate change instead of just slowing or stopping it.

[Anonymous No.10089185]

>>10080283
FPBP

[Anonymous No.10089453]

>>10088280
No, storage is almost for free.
Because you can use existing infrastructure for storage and transport of natural gas.

[Anonymous No.10090019]

[Anonymous No.10090117]

>>10087205
The tragedy of the commons relates to an undesirable outcome (large environmental damage) as a result of individual, selfishly desirable action (using fossil fuels because they're cheap). Knowledge that the outcome of individualism will be very bad for everyone should suggest a wiser course of action than letting the free market handle it, because it won't until it's too late.

[Anonymous No.10091549]

>>10090019
It can be transported, anon.

[Anonymous No.10091625]

>>10090117
How would we go about executing meaningful action that would stop unsustainable resource management?

[Anonymous No.10091696]

>>10091625
Regulation.
The simplest approach is to place a tax on the use of the commons that matches the cost of its externalities.

[Anonymous No.10091989]

>>10091696
instead the administration does the opposite and subsidizes harmful industries

[Anonymous No.10092074]

>>10086475
Thermo-electricity is really expensive when we consider those plates. ... : You need to stack layers to reach some efficiency.

[Anonymous No.10092652]

[Anonymous No.10093051]

looks great

[Anonymous No.10094226]

>>10080283
FPBP

[Anonymous No.10094264]

>>10080279
>companies you think are poised well for the future

anybody installing wind turbines or solar panels will be busy for years

[Anonymous No.10094875]

>>10081617
>i believe in perpetual energy and what is thermodynamics???? lol :^) pleas share and like this on facebook thanks Jenny for your kind comment!

[Anonymous No.10094925]

>>10083810
>Your numbers are way off. It's much cheaper.
i guess we can all just take your word for it. brb changing the entire world economy due to an anonymous uncited comment on fourCHANnel

[Anonymous No.10094941]

>>10082598
i would like for you to post proofs. i'm a math grad student and it'd be nice to have data and papers to show to my retarded colleagues who favor renewable memes over nuclear

[Anonymous No.10095146]

[Anonymous No.10095396]

>>10094925
The numbers are simple and easy to understand. Building new renewable capacity will cost you one billion per gigawatt. All power plants in the US together got a capacity of 1000 gigawatt. 200GW are already renewable. In recent years about 20 GW new renewable capacity has been build annually. >>10095146
At this pace it would indeed take about 40 years to go full renewable. In any case you would spend 800 billion for the transition. Building new fossil power plants would cost the same.
We could easily build more renewable and retire old plants faster, this way the transition would be faster but cost the same.

[Anonymous No.10095488]

>>10095396
>Building new renewable capacity will cost you one billion per gigawatt.
>In any case you would spend 800 billion for the transition.
Ah, thank you for these incredible numbers, sir! I will surely take your word for them! Hold on, please, I have the chief economic officer of the world economy on the phone.

[Anonymous No.10096255]

>>10095396
So, basically, we don't need to do anything? We just let the market take its course and we'll be full renewable in less than half a century?

[Anonymous No.10096297]

>>10082598
All your claims are false

[Anonymous No.10096370]

>summerfags deadass not knowing about biofuel efficiency rates up in here
You can easily power a fucking house's electricity for a day with 6-8 KG of wood by gasifying natural gas out of it, the higher the temperature the larger tar molecules break apart into more fuel, if you need the number i can look it up for you but anything you need to know, scientific papers and blueprints by FEMA and lots of indepth information, head on to driveonwood.com

[Anonymous No.10096389]

>>10096297
Now show the graph without all the subsidies.

[Anonymous No.10096421]

bumping interesting thread

[Anonymous No.10096434]

No matter what source wins, batteries will win.

[Anonymous No.10096437]

>>10096370
You don't need 10 kilowatts hours a day in first place.

[Anonymous No.10096440]

>>10096370
Where can I shop for heat engine electrocentral?

[Anonymous No.10096460]

>>10096440
any restored or working gasoline engine can work with clean natural gas, you have to be able to cool it enough so you can drop most of the particulate, water cooling and filtering the gas is required for a motor to work right, and it wont reduce its lifetime if its a 4-stroke, 2-strokes, you have to start with gasoline to lubricate the motor before changing to gas

[Anonymous No.10096539]

>>10096370
Interesting stuff, thanks for the link.

[Anonymous No.10096601]

>>10096255
Some states like e.g Iowa are almost halfway there. If they go on like this they are full renewable in a decade.

[Anonymous No.10097639]

quite some nuclear plants will retire soon and probably be replaced by renewable

[Anonymous No.10097715]

>>10095396
Do you even realize that a renewable gigawatt is worth only a small fraction of conventional power plant gigawatt, due to much smaller capacity factor? Of course you dont.

Only 3% of US total energy consumption in 2017 was from wind and solar.

This is the relevant number.

3%

[Anonymous No.10098537]

What happened to geo-energy? The earth makes a lot of heat.

[Anonymous No.10098659]

>>10098537
Nothing happened to it, there just aren't a lot of good sites and it's not terribly profitable.

[Anonymous No.10098780]

*coug-cold fusion-h*

[Anonymous No.10098838]

>>10098537
it's growing, but not as fast as wind and solar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power

in Kenya it's even the main source of electric power
https://af.reuters.com/article/investingNews/idAFKBN0LK1AM20150216

[Anonymous No.10099153]

should I start applying for a new master degree guys? it's been 3 months and I still cannot find a job in renewables... yesterday a recruiter told me there are not enough jobs atm in yuropoor. what should I do I am loosing my mind

[Anonymous No.10099156]

>>10081600
>implying fusion plants wouldn't use fusion to heat water

[Anonymous No.10099437]

>>10097715
British thermal units?
The US is still a British colony?

also if you would really include all energy solar rules because it grows plants and heats up earth

[Anonymous No.10099906]

>>10080279
No such thing, you can't "renew" the land materials or maintenance.

[Anonymous No.10100141]

>>10080279
>Starting a renewable energy thread on /sci/
please leave.

[Anonymous No.10100146]

>>10094875

[Anonymous No.10100475]

>>10080279


October 8, 1975 at a scientific session devoted to the 250th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, awarded three years later, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, made the concept paper, in which, based on the basic physical principles, in fact, buried all "alternative energy", except for controlled thermonuclear fusion.

43 years later...

>Hey /sci/
>I've recently become interested in renewable energy. Are there any technologies or companies you think are poised well for the future?

[Anonymous No.10100683]

>>10080279
One word: Methane

[Anonymous No.10100762]

>>10084679

At this point, battery storage is pretty competitive for these peak demand periods like in Southern Australia. They are competitive and do pretty good job at maintaining the grid frequency.

[Anonymous No.10100780]

>>10100762
Batteries are good for hour-to-hour load shifting, but they're too expensive per joule for overnight storage.

[Anonymous No.10100788]

>>10100762
>>10100780
Flywheels... Flywheels everywhere.

[Anonymous No.10100805]

>>10100788
Oh man, I'm a huge fan of flywheel energy storage. The kind of protection you'd need to contain a flywheel failure is pretty crazy, though.

[Anonymous No.10100995]

260 meters, and they're getting bigger every year....

-A 'relatively' small patch of desert with solar panels could easily power the world.

-Clusters of giant offshore wind turbines could easily power the world.

-Strategically placed hydroelectric dams throughout the world's river networks could easily power the world.

[Anonymous No.10101426]

the most potential is in powering transport with renewable energy

[Anonymous No.10101453]

>>10081355
>oooops it's nighttime now! Oooooooooops it started snowing! What's thiiiiiiis?? Winterrr where the sun isn't actiiiive? OooOooOopPPSss Iit Got CLooUUuUuDYyYYyyy AND stopPped being BLoowowiiIEEEEE WAAOIZIEEEE

[Anonymous No.10101457]

>>10081586
>a fucking grade 10/10 earthquake and tsunami hit nuclear station
>it only barely blows up
>"nuclear power is unsafe"

Btw, gen 4 nuclear power plants uses material from gen 3 power plants while producing material which is radioactively unstable for about 500 years (instead of about 10 000 years). It's not at all unreasonable to assume that gen 6 will improve this cycle further, and before long nuclear power will be completely renewable.

[Anonymous No.10101460]

>>10099437
>also if you would really include all energy solar rules because it grows plants and heats up earth

Behold, the absolute state of the solarfags!

>>3%<<

[Anonymous No.10101466]

>>10081586
>nuclear is not renewable

does not matter, there is enough uranium and thorium for thousands of years, billions of we use breeders

in some ways nuclear is more sustainable than renewables, since it could power civilization even after the Sun shits the bed

[Anonymous No.10101493]

>>10101466
If you would produce all electricity with uranium there would be barely enough through the 2020s. Breeders are way more expensive and less safe. There is a reason why nobody ever built lots of breeders.

[Anonymous No.10101563]

>>10101457
Sure, in a fantasy world where we also got flying unicorns and world peace.
Meanwhile in the real world no new nuclear plant is even planned. While wind and solar already took over.

[Anonymous No.10101727]

once electric cars become more common wind and solar will be build like crazy to meet raising demand

[Anonymous No.10102575]

>>10101563
Wind and solar are subsidized
Nuclear used to be subsidized via military spending to obtain weapons-grade radioisotopes

[Anonymous No.10102587]

>>10102575
it's subsidized because it has to compete against oil which has 100 years of investment and R&D and about literally a billion times more economies of scale than it.

It could be 1000 times more subsidized than it is today and still be deserving of an award because of how much more profitable it is than oil.

Once it has 100 years of R&D and investement as the evil oil industry it will make it look like a toy

[Anonymous No.10102597]

>>10101457
>nuclear power will be completely renewable
Well, close enough for our lifetimes at least.

[Anonymous No.10102814]

>>10102587
If it truly was more profitable, those evil oil companies would be building oligopolies over the infrastructure building and manufacturing of solar and wind right now

[Anonymous No.10102850]

>muh wind
>muh solar

LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
>LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
>LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
>LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
>LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
>LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
>LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS
>LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS

[Anonymous No.10102855]

>>10080283
PBPF

[Anonymous No.10102856]

>>10101563
China brought online 2 Ap1000s just this year and have 13 other nuclear reactors under construction. While nuclear maybe stagnant in the west, it isn't at all in Asia. In fact south Korea just recommitted to nuclear this year.

[Anonymous No.10102865]

>>10101563
A few things you need to know about solar and wind

>VERY FUCKING STUPID HIGH principle costs
>Very low power output
>Inconsistent power
>geographically limited

It can't be the future, stop pushing it. Nuclear has to carry the brunt of the world's energy needs. In some very small regions like arizona solar is find, and near the coasts wind is doable, but their energy density is low compared to nuclear and nuclear isn't geographically limited.

[Anonymous No.10102875]

>>10102865
>nuclear isn't geographically
I agree with all your points except this one
Nuclear shouldn't be deployed in high risk areas like near fault lines or in common hurricane paths. They have to be taken offline as a precaution everytime a large storm strikes, lowering max duty cycle, and are always at risk for one high-consequence, fukashima tier event.

[Anonymous No.10102900]

>>10096370
>natural gas
It's not natural gas from gasification, it's producer gas
The difference being that nat gas is mostly methane, while prod gas is carbon monoxide, dioxide, and hydrogen. Make sure you have monoxide alarms installed and you don't put your gasification setup in an enclosed space with no ventilation.

[Anonymous No.10102906]

>>10102875
>or in common hurricane paths
Nuclear is the most resistant to weather by far

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/09/01/hurricane-harvey-makes-the-case-for-nuclear-power/

[Anonymous No.10103310]

>>10100475
It's hard to make predictions. especially about the future.

[Anonymous No.10103338]

>>10102856
meanwhile even China is losing enthusiasm for nuclear power
https://nuclear-news.net/2018/10/15/china-losing-enthusiasm-for-nuclear-power/

[None !niqjediPCA No.10103342]

>>10080279

[Anonymous No.10103414]

What do you guys think how likely is it that the grid will eventually be transformed to DC? Solar and other renewables produce DC, DC can be transported much more efficiently, and computers, smartphones, LED lamps and TVs, electric cars, etc. all run on DC. DC grid would also mean installing super-fast loading chargers for electric cars would be much easier. So will the 21st century be the comeback of the DC electricity?

[Anonymous No.10103509]

>>10103414
It is less expensive to change AC voltage with transformers than DC voltage with step down/buck converters. We may eventually be able to use a grid with flow batteries both storing energy and acting as a dc voltage converter, though.

[Anonymous No.10103561]

>>10103414
here is an overview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects

[Anonymous No.10103593]

>>10080279
Nuclear breeders.
Fast spectrum MSRs, specifically.

[Anonymous No.10103834]

>>10080279
>Are there any technologies or companies you think are poised well for the future?

At this point it's not even a debate, large scale photovoltaic is cheaper then everything else, even coal. Only far up north like e.g. Scandinavia hydro is still superior.

[Anonymous No.10103837]

>>10080283
FPBP